I’ve been fortunate enough to wear test two versions of the Montrail Bajada ($115) or, as I sometimes call them, the Cascadia Killer. I love this Spring 2012 shoe, which is actually due for a late-January or February 1, 2012 release, enough that I wore it for 80 miles at Western States in June. (I would have worn it for all 100 miles, but rightly chose extremely grippy shoes for the first 20 miles that included 10 miles of solid ice.) You can think of the Bajada as the Montrail Rogue Racer’s big brother. As with the Rogue Racer, it’s lightweight and highly breathable. However, a series of overlays on the upper and a slightly different midsole make these feel significantly more supportive without being the slightest bit rigid. I really like the Rogue Racer, but there’s no way it’s enough shoe for me to run 100 miles in. The Bajada, well, it goes that extra distance and some then. In fact, I wish I hadn’t sent my most recent pair back to Montrail wear testing as I’d love to wear these for the Ultra-Trail du Mont-Blanc in a few weeks.

The women's Montrail Bajada in poppy red and moray.

Upper
The Bajada’s upper is much akin to the Rogue Racer, as the same thin mesh predominates both uppers. However, the Bajada’s heavier synthetic material and TPU overlays provide a bit more foot lockdown as well as more medial support. The Bajada also features more robust overlays around the toes. This same protection wraps around both the medial and lateral sides of the forefoot offering protection for more technical runs. Despite the additional overlays, I’d still characterize the Bajada as a well-breathing shoe.

The men's Montrail Bajada in stainless and valencia.

All around the Bajada’s upper is roomier and, therefore, more endurance oriented than the Rogue Racer. The Bajada is wider at the heel and forefoot and taller both at the ball of the foot and front of the toe box.

Midsole/Outsole
While I no longer have a pair of Bajada to compare side-by-side with the Rogue Racer, I can say that the heel and, especially, the midfoot are less dramatically pared down in the Bajada than the Rogue Racer. This means a bit more weight – 10.0 ounces (284) grams for the Bajada vs 9.0 ounces (255 grams) for US men’s 9 – but also likely explains the enhanced stability of Bajada. The shoe does have a Trail Shield rockplate.

A well-worn Montrail Bajada outsole.

The Bajada has Montrail’s standard 10 mm drop, while it sits 20 mm at the heel and 10 mm at the toe.

The lugs of the Bajada are deeper and more widely spaced than those of the Rogue Racer. This means better traction in loose dirt, mud, and snow as well as superior ability to shed clingy mud.

I think the Bajada are better than Cascadia 6. I loves the Cascadia 4, but the upper feels sloppy in the current version. The Bajada is a similar weight trail shoe with excellent runability, but with what I feel is a better upper.

Looks interesting, but I won't be interested until Montrail significantly reduces the amount of heel-to-toe drop. Get it down to 4mm drop (or better zero mm) then I'll give Montrail a try once again. Seriously, now that I've gotten used to zero or very minimal drop in my trail/road shoes, I can't imagine going back to standard running shoes that have 10-12mm drop. Doesn't sound like a big difference but it's Earth shattering!

I totally understand were you're coming from, but, personally, I'm glad Montrail hasn't jumped on the low drop bandwagon. I'm used to 10-12mm drop shoes and, due to a history of low leg issues, I can't run long in anything with an 8mm or less drop. For instance, I really like the Saucony Peregrine, but I'm toast at mile 20. I think plenty of companies are making lightweight, low drop shoes and I applaud Montrail. In fact, I feel left out by companies releasing all their lightweight models as low drop shoes. (See New Balance MT101 to MT110 change tomorrow.)

This is the exact thinking that has everyone so confused who is sort of new to trail running. "Low leg issues" (as well as foot issues like plantar fasciitis, or fasciosis as it is now called) are exacerbated by 10-12mm drop shoes. Yes, you get symptom relief from wearing the 10-12mm drop shoes (just as you get symptom relief from orthotics), but your legs/feet get weaker over time, causing a vicious circle where minimalist shoes are too "painful" to run long distances. If you want to run fast/long, then yes, the 10-12mm drop will get you there, but in the long run (no pun intended) you are better off going slower and working your way up to long distances in minimalist (ultimate goal is zero drop) shoes. Merrell, New Balance, Saucony…they will all be way ahead of Montrail/North Face, etc. as more and more people go the minimalist route. And I think it's a shame (even though I consider you a friend from our old DC days) that you keep perpetuating this "safe" mindset. You will be dropped (pun intended) if you don't jump on the bandwagon!

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily do any good to destroy your lower legs with long runs in low drop shoes while you're actively rehabbing and working in low drop shoes. It's not an all or nothing gain. While I logged some longish runs in the Peregrine, it would have been a fools errand to try running Western States in them. Know thyself and know thy limits! :-)

BTW, why should the ultimate goal be zero drop shoes. There's even less solid data there than on there is for 10-12 mm drop shoes. I'll wear a wide range of heel-to-toe drop shoes over the next decade and then see where the data is.

The ultimate goal should be zero drop because that is how the foot was created. Anything else is tweaking the natural motion and setting up imbalances that take as many years to undo as they were "done" by ramped shoes. I ran for years in what the industry doled out, and now some brave souls (yes, more puns) are bringing us back. Not just to zero drop, but wide toe boxes shaped like the Munson Last and not the narrow point that has defined the industry for decades. I will be putting my kids in zero drop and I will send you the data. Happy, injury-free, and knowing their limits! I just think as the new voice for ultra trail running, you really need to do more homework on this. I actually re-habbed all my injuries (PF, Achilles, etc) in zero drop and yes it can be done. In fact, that's how it should be done! Slowly, yes, but in zero drop and not with the 10-12 mm crutches. Best of luck at UTMB – wear the Zeros!

Could not have said it better myself, Trail Clown – cheers to you for nailing it!! I used to wear Cascadia's and got PF in both feet. After transitioning to minimal / low drop shoes (carefully)I've run 6000 miles in the last 18 months with zero issues. Hopefully Bryon "slowly" comes around :)

It depends on what YOUR ultimate goal is. What if you want to be as competitive as possible? If that is your goal, zero drop shoes are NOT, I repeat NOT for you. In every instance of creating a shoe specifically for a runner they have raised heels. A raised heel reduces wear and tear on the achilles and exactly like Byran said he has had a long history of lower leg issues, putting MORE stress on the achilles doesn't help. When they did force plate tests on Shorter back in his hayday they saw he put so little pressure on his feet that midsole material was not necessary. So they didn't use any, it was however his experience that shoes without a raised heel put too much stress on him to stay competitive, so he specifically asked for a slightly raised heel in order to prolong his running career.

Your perspective on your end result of what you expect from running is different than the wildly vast majority. You want to run in as little as possible, most people want comfortable shoes that get them through a race issue free.

Having worn and tested all of these shoes in person (including the rogue fly *drool*) there is no reason to make the heel toe drop any lower. They all fit amazingly well and at the end of the day if a shoe fits you properly, the heel toe drop has damn near nothing to do with it. If you have proper motor control over your legs, running with high efficiency is quite easy, the shoe doesn't really interfere. If you are lazy, then you will have issues no matter the changes to footwear.

i love that on all of the ultra and trail running sites there are people that say the only way to run is with zero drop shoes. My goal has been to run fast and almost everyone that beats me seems to be wearing shoes with some drop. Tell me about someone in the top echelons of running ( i mean top 10 at their distance that lives the zero drop running lifestyle and I might think about changing.

Maxwell – I hear what you are saying, if you want to be competitive on one particular day and you haven't done the work to let your foot and achilles tendon strengthen / adapt to low drop shoes (0-4mm) then propped up shoes are the way to go. But over time your feet will stay relatively weak, or get weaker. I know that may sound crazy, but when you go truly minimal it's amazing to see that parts of your feet really have been asleep for a long, long time.

Stinate – Anton Krupicka is a pretty good example. He does alot of straight barefoot running and is famous for taking a kitchen knife to hack off the chunky heel of regular type shoes. I'm pretty sure the new MT110 he's all hyped about is a 4mm drop, the Trail Minimus is. Btw, it doesn't have to be completely zero drop to promote a natural foot strike, up to 4mm is good and doesn't interfere. And yes, Anton does get hurt but that seems to be from super high mileage on mountain terrain, not from his shoes.

… the Montrail Badwater shoe … in the way back when department, Hi-Tec had their own shoe named the 'Badwater 146' in the early '90s to go along with their production/sponsorship of the DV to Whitney event (if I recall correctly … and after a few laps of the BW course, I would no longer bet on the accuracy of any of my recollections from so long ago). Not the best shoe – although it was invovative at the time with a heel plug type of thing … I hope Montrail does better. I do enjoy their Sabinos.

I should say that although I like the fit of the Sabinos (any suggestions for something similar … nice and wide … works with a bunion – no excess seams or 'decorations' to agggravate that tender area), the outsole is completely trashed/worn down after just 200 miles on the gravelly trails around Mt. Shasta where I live. I tried their Badrock shoe and though acceptable, I found the seams failing, the fit slightly too narrow and have gone back to the Sabinos. I have quite a few of my runners use the Mountain Masochist with very few problems … too narrow for me though.

Coach. Try the Montrail Fairhavens. Although the outsole is not as aggressive, they are a bit wider in the forefoot, more forgiving in the upper, and softer in the midsole than what you have experienced in the Sabinos. With that said, due to the Fluid Post they have plenty of medial support which you will appreciate coming from the Sabinos. Cheers!

Agreed! I hear lots of hate on the Fairhaven but it is the best and most forgiving shoe I have found in two years. Zero drop in NOT for everyone and I too am glad MOntrail looks out for those of us who can't run in them.

Now, for those with WAY too much time on their hands (like tapering for Leadville :-) … here is the patent (I think) for the interesting interchangeable heel plug design that made the Badwater 146 shoe what it was:

I'll definitely give the Bajada's a shot. I currently use the Mountain Masochists for 100-milers, as I like a bit extra shoe for the distance (my training is in, for the most part, Inov-8 F-Lite 195s and Roclite 285s), but maybe the Bajada's can take their place on raceday. Are the new Masochists going to be about the same weight as the current models?

I just got a pair of the Badrocks to replace my Cascadias because I wanted something with a touch wider midfoot/toebox. I like almost everything about the Cascadias (except the laces) but, on runs longer than 8-10 miles, I was getting consistent rubbing and hot spots on the inside bottom edge of my foot between the arch and big toe. The Montrails seem to be better, so far, in that regard. The Bajada looks to be even better than the Badrock assuming the fit is similar. As a midfoot striker, I too would probably like it better with a more minimal heel/toe drop (4mm would be fine) but 9-10mm still isn't too bad for a long distance shoe. The extra heel cushion is appreciated when I get tired and inadvertently land on my heel or hit a big pointy rock.

I have the Cascadia 5 & 6 and feel like the most recent version is wearing a set of bricks on my feet. Compared to my racing shoe, the New Balance MT101, it's really hard for me to race in the Cascadia due to the weight/high heel (or so it feels). Training in the Cascadia is OK because they really protect my feet but the descents are tough as my feet are forced to the front of the shoe with a higher than preferred heel.

Would you say that these are a happy medium between a short distance, minimalistic racer and a shoe such as the Cascadia? I know this is about the 100+ mile race but I'm curious if it's light enough, provided a great feel and has a heel drop that allowed quick descents.

The tread pattern looks great and I think I just might put these on the "buy" list when avail.

In some respects, I think you could call this a middle ground between a minimalist racer and the Cascadia. It's got the airy feel of racer with the support of the Cascadia. However, superficially, it's pretty close to the Cascadia 6.

I'll again note that locks the foot in better than the Cascadia 6. Honestly, I LOVED the Cascadia 4. It was my go-to shoe in 2009. I wore it throughout the Leadville 100 en route to a sub-20 hour finish. However, the biggest failing with the current Cascadia is the play in the upper on descents. I think this could be fixed easily enough by removing the damned elastic piece that floats two eyelets. I'll take some upper metatarsal pressure during steep descents in exchange for a secure fit.

I'm glad to see the Rogue Racer upper got simplified as that was my first complaint when I tried them on.. However that sole still has a high arch profile (partly due to a beefy insolve) and the traction is so thick that I don't get good trail feel. I feel for Montrail like I feel for Patagonia: two really good companies that I want to like, but don't offer much for my niche of the market.

I want a flexible, light, precise racing flats with good trail feel and lightweight split shorts.. I don't wear much more than that, and don't need anything more than that.. I feel like the times are changing, and the big outdoor companies are getting the message, it just feels like it's been a matter of pulling teeth for the last 2 years. The MT101 and the RC1400 from New Balance are working really well for me right now, and as similar products come out from outdoor companies, it'll be interesting to see if they'll meet the up and coming MT110 and new flats.

Bryon I plan to run TransRockies in my trusted Newtons but I'm looking for another different but similar pair to take as a 2nd. Wondering if there's a Montrail you think I should try. I'm a forefoot striker (have been for 12 yrs) and run some trails here in CA with the Merrell Pace Glove, but after trying them in the rockies this past weekend I've decided it's too 'rocky' for those to be my 2nd pair for the race (BTW I read the above debate on zero drop). Is there a Montrail match for me?

I don’t know if it’s a cop out, but I’d say the Bajada and Mountain Masochists are completely different animals. In fact, there aren’t too many trail shoes that I’d want to compare to the MM… it’s quite different.

I'm super-psyched to try the Rogue Fly. The Rogue Racer is an almost-perfect shoe for my trail running needs but it is by far the beefiest shoe I wear so the even-lighter Fly may be just about perfect!

I loved the older Cascadias, and it seems like they've just gotten crappier and crappier over the last couple iterations. So it seems to me that if anything/anyone is going to be a Cascadia-killer, it's the design team at Brooks…

Scientifically, there are too many variables to really determine what's "best." Until we have systematic data on shoes of varying drops, weights, uppers, lasts, etc. etc. we'll never know which variables are key. And it does depend both on goals and, of course, the individual's foot, stride, etc, which is where most of the variance will come in.

For what it's worth, I've struggled with PF for the past year brought on by shoes with sloppy uppers, and have been attempting a slow (and painful)rehab with a mix of Cascadia 5s (for long and more technical runs, including ultras) and Minimus Trails for runs up to 3-ish hours. (and some road runs in the Minimus Road which I have come to love.) Perhaps a mix of strenthening the feet with minimalist, low drop shoes and supporting them with the tried and true is a resonable plan.

I am a back of the back of the pack 50K newbie that has worn out his Cascadia 5's and is looking for a replacement. I had no pain/blisters/issues/problems with the Cascadias, but would like something with a bit more cushion. Might someone be able to recommend a brand/model that fits that bill? Thanks in advance for the help!

I think we are the same speed. I have been running in the Fairhaven for three months including a 50 miler with zero issues. They look a little unorthodox (almost like a skate shoe) but the Fluid Post technology works really well for me.

Bryon, I to fought low leg issues for almost 10 months, only thing I learned from it that I will do what ever it takes to keep running. That being said, I still use 12 mm drop shoes now, do you think it is worth a try to drop down to a 10mm drop, then maybe lower or do you believe that once you have Achilles tendinitis you should just kinda stay in what feels good. I am so torn on the subject, I am 51 next week have ran my share of marathons, 50k and 50 mile runs and want a 100 mile belt buckle, but I want to be able to run when I am 70 (if I make it that long). Above all, to be able run at 70 means more than anything. Frankly because when your that old you can win a lot of 1st place age group medals!haha

Hey Evan,
To be honest, I don't notice the difference between 12 mm and 10 mm drop shoes. Take that down to a 4 mm drop and 20 miles is a stretch even in real shoes like the Saucony Peregrine. I think it's fair to say that I give no thought to wearing any shoe in the "traditional" running shoe heel-toe drop range of 10-12 mm.

Bryon, really enjoy all the comments. Training for 2012 Leadville and trying to pick out the shoe I'll use. Right now I switch between Cascadias, NB Minimus, and NB MT101's for training runs. I seem to have more Talus / Calcaneal tendon problems when I run in the Cascadias and went I switch back to the low drop shoes its like I can run all day with no pain. I do think I'll need something more substantial than the MT 101 for Leadville….what are some shoes that fall in the middle ground?

If you've been running in Cascadias you might try the new PureGrits. I haven't taken them on anything longer than about 3 hrs yet but the lighter feel and 4mm (I believe) drop will be closer to the feel of the NB minimus (which I also run in). I wonder, though, if something with still a bit more substance (and better toe bumper) might be wise for Leadville.

Bryon – I'm sure you're right. I tried the Peregrine after your great review but found them too narrow in the toebox for my foot. Brooks and NB fit have worked better for me. Counting the days til the MT110 release, which also may not have enough guts for a long haul like Leadville. Doesn't the Cascadia 7 have a lesser toe drop (which might work well for Todd)?

Hi Rob, I turned to zero – 4mm drop shoes more than one year ago, but needed some added protection for rocky trails (the trail gloves lack that at the heel) and tried the rogue racers. In spite of the 10mm drop, I find them very light and they do not change my fore-midfoot gait. Would be perfect with 2 or 3mm less midsole, as sometimes I feel a bit unstable when taken to the limit, but regarding the style of running, they are very good, protective, light and roomy at the forefoot.

Whats the sizing like on these shoes. I fit a 9 1/2 US in a wide fit. Presently wear size 9 1/2 pair of Salomon xt wings 2. I am considering purchasing a pair just looking for comments on fit and recommendations. Been looking in Sydney – Australia for a stockist so I may try the brand on to get a feel but no one seems to stock them here any more. Any help is greatly appreciated in advance.

I really like the looks of this Montrail Bajada but without trying them on Im kind of skeptical about what size to go with? Some reviews say size up 1/2 size and I havent been able to find any in a 12.5. I take a standard size 12 in 90% of my shoes. It seems the Bajada jump from size 12 to 13 online. Is the toe box roomy enough to accomdate a wider foot? I run quite a bit in lower heel to toe drop shoes but liking the little higher ratio in the 100 mile distance since it seems after about 35-40 miles my lower leg/feet seem to get pretty fried in the lower drop shoes.

Not too many running stores near me carry a wide range of shoes, so it's difficult to try them on. I've been running in the Cascadia since the Hardrock was discontinued and never quite as happy in it. I decided to order the Bajada after reading you reveiw. I took them out for a 2 hour spin today, and couldn't be more happy. I love the shoe. I just wanted to say thank you for the review. I certainly appreciate all you guys are doing to get the info out!

I tried on the Bajada and they felt great but unfortunately, I'm between sizes. The toebox is roomy, certainly roomier than my usual Brooks Cascadia. I wear 13 in the Cascadia and have had to size up to 13 in most Montrail shoes (M Masochist, Vitesse, etc.). But I am likely a 12.5 in the Bajada, which is a bummmer. The 12 was just a little too short and the 13 a little too long. If you are a 12 in standard/dress shoes, I think a Bajada 12 wouuld be perfect.

Barefoot evangelists like Trail Clown and David fail to acknowledge that every body is different and everybody's goals are different. 0 drop shoes and the barefoot movement have done a lot to turn the runners' world on it's head and a lot of people have benefited from going back to "the way the body was meant to function." But still EVERY BODY is different, every foot is different (in fact, how many people have two different size feet?), and every body's body mechanics are different. So why is it that the barefoot extremists insist that any and every problem that any runner who doesn't run barefoot experiences is caused by the fact that the runner isn't barefoot and hasn't taken the gradual time to learn run barefoot. It's like the ol' snake oil argument – cures everything under the sun? Well, I don't buy it. Barefoot/minimalist running might be best and solve the most problems for a lot of people – maybe even most people – but why do we have to vilify and criticize those people who need some cushioning and support. It's obnoxious and makes me feel sheepish whenever I'm asked what kind of shoes I run in. (Minimalist if you must know ; ) p.s. brian, thanks so much for your reviews. what a great resource.

Anyone having problems with durability with their Bejadas? The toe bumper is starting to seperate on both shoes and on one the different pieces of the sole are seperating as well. They have just under 200 miles on them total and otherwise they've been awesome aside from a small tear in the fabric overlay. I'm just nervous at this point that I'm going to have major shoe failure during my rough and rocky 100 (MMT) next month…

My only real complaint is they allow a good bit of debris in through the loose weave of the overlay fabric but I'm judging based on the crosslites and they had plenty of extra coverage in that area.

I love the shoes and will order another pair, but yes, I have durability problems with mine: I'm ripping through the fabric in multiple places, particularly where the plastic meets the mesh on the sides. And yes this makes the one other problem – letting in debris through the mesh – worse.

Kevin, I am also having issues with tearing in the fabric. I have about 180 miles in the shoes and there is definitely a hole on the instep of the shoes which sucks because I am in the same boat as I have a 50k next weekend as a warmup to my first fifty miler in May.

I guess that means you don't have little flaps on the bottom of the forefoot where the different parts of the sole are coming unattached? So far the separation is pretty small but it is somewhat worrisome as I could see it becoming a major problem during a race. I think it is only the right shoe as well so it may not be indicative of a problem with the shoes, just my shoe.

I just got a pair of the Bajadas. I was really excited about these shoes. Seemed like a good shoe for longer distances and pounding down hills. I've been running in NB 101's and love the low drop and minimal style but felt the pounding on descents and longer runs. In the 101's a size 9 fits perfect. In Brooks and size 9 also feels good. A size 8.5 in the Bajadas felt similar when I tried them on in the store, a little snug but I figured they might give a little after breaking in. Size 9 felt just a little too roomy up front, a little over a thumbs width. The overall shoe felt really good on a 12 mile run of hard pack trails and hills. However, my feet did feel cramped in the toes region. The bajadas seem to fit narrow up front and push the foot forward, especially on descents. I kept wearing these around to try and break them in but they seem to be set on being a little too small. Not sure if a 9 would work or not. I have also noticed some discomfort in my shins after wearing the bajadas. Not sure if the switch from a 4mm to 10mm drop is causing this. Anyone experience this too? I might give them another try in size 9. However the Brooks Pure Grits feel really good and have more padding and lower drop.

At last i have found a pair of shoes to help sort out my injuries , only problem had to order them from this site as i live in the UK, but well worth it, and great service, however they have started to fall apart on the uppers , holes appearing on both shoes and this after only three races, granted the distance and terrain was challenging , but having done those races over a number of years i have never experienced this kind of wear and tear befor, i think the mesh uppers are prone to be easily ripped ie holed ! would i? buy another pair, at the moment these shoes are the best i have owned, outstanding platform, great traction and balance, with a rockplate that eats rocks.

I tried a pair of these at my local running store yesterday. Overall they felt great, but I got some slight slippage in the heel. In fact, this is an issue for me with most trail shoes. Why do a lot of trail shoes forego the extra eyelit up top for alternate lacing? ANy suggestions on making my heel fit and/or lightweight trail shoes with a roomy toebox and a snug heel?

I am happy that there are some non-minimalist shoes out there. I have minimilist shoes and have run in them. they feel great and i had no real problem with them…but when i went and did some long distances – they dont hold up and my feet were killing me at the end. my wife has minimilist shoe and we were running out in south dakota at wind cave national park – nothing super technical and we went off trail and cut through a section of pines ( we were on a non marked path) and she kept complaining about something in her shoe but couldn't find anything i looked and found a small sliver of a piece of wood sticking through her shoe – it wouldn't have happened to a 'traditional' shoe. we like the minimilist – comfort fit but it things get too rocky to technical minimilist shoes arent going to hold up and they break down fast real fast too. I am dismayed by the fact that all shoe reviews seem to be around the minimilist shoes. the catch with minimilist shoes and zero drop is – well run in barefoot then…..or vibrams…;-)

I wore a size 9 in the MT101's and also wear a 9 in the bajadas. I wore the MT101's with and without socks. They would get a little sloppy without socks though. The bajadas seemed narrower so you might want to accommodate for this with a half size bigger or re-laceing to allow for more room in the forefoot. Depends on your fit preference. I would think the sizing would be the same unless you wanted to allow for foot swelling in longer runs.

I'm thinking the Bajadas might be perfect for where I am right now–recovering from a heel injury, need some cushioning/protection, like to have good toe room, really don't want to go back to heavy shoes. But I'm concerned about the durability issues. Bryon, I don't see that you've weighed on on this yet. What kind of mileage have you been getting out of yours? And has anyone out there *not* had them fall apart after 150 miles? I step pretty lightly, am a solid mid-packer, and tend not to bomb down the hills, so I'm wondering if maybe I could get more miles out of them than some seem to.

I'm wearing NB Amps now, which are a little too flexible and minimal. My injury seems better when I have a light shoe with a bit of heel rise and a bit of cushioning/protection in the sole. For roads, Saucony Mirages work great for me–they're the slightly more supportive version of the Kinvara. They're not known for a wide forefoot, but they seem to have more room than Kinvaras. I'm sort of a 13 1/2, so with the right shape, even a normal 14 can give my toes the room I'm looking for.

I thought Pearl Izumi Peaks might be the solution, but they run so small I can't even begin to fit into their 14. Pure Grits and Peregrines crowd my toes too much–at least the early models I tried. Maybe the new ones are better. Rogue Racers are too thin and flexy in the forefoot, Masochists are too heavy… and, yes, I'm probably too picky! Anyone have ideas for shoes I'm overlooking? I haven't tried Inov-8s for awhile. They seem to be making some less narrow shoes than they used to. Thanks!

Looks like no one's really following this thread any more, but I have to say that I have the Bajadas now and love them. The fit is everything I look for: locked-in in the heel and midfoot, tons of room in the toe. They're light but protective, just flexible enough, and I don't really notice the heel rise much. I'll be really sad if they fall apart in 150 miles!

i am still "lurking" in this thread having said my bit over in the uk, still stick to my original post and will say they are a great ride, love the base and sorted out a my issues with regards to Posterior Tibial problem, its the durability and quality of the uppers that let this shoe down, i only managed to put out less than 180 miles? in them befor they disintegrated on me, the inner part on one shoe just "blown out" with holes appearing on the uppers , i hope the concept of the base stays with montrail, the rest needs to be binned…poor workmanship or just plain bad design without proper trials ….say no more!

I have a pair of these, yes the mens, because they were discounted to $34 and couldn't pass them up. I really like this shoe, its lightweight the comfort/cusioning is good for transition between road/trail. My one compliant is that the tounge on these shoes always slips and never stays in place always falling to the outside. Not a little bit either… my laces are practically right up against the top of my foot. Any suggestions on how to fix this?